Zone1 Why not just amend the National Firearms Act to include ARs and AKs?

[alang1216]

News:
Under our system of government, the majority - necessarily and intentionally - does not always rule.

'Always' being the critical term.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I only know about our penal system, is there another 'condition'?

There must be, according to you, as you believe no right is absolute.
According to you, someone can own a slave.

 

[alang1216]

More evidence that you do not understand out system of government.

Please explain then.

Those are called "privileges", not rights.

Incorrect. You have the right to bear arms but the definition of 'arms' is subject to change.

And yet, every regulation in question before the court in, and since, Heller has been overturned; none have been upheld.

SCOTUS decides constitutionality - not you.

True but Heller was decided by a single vote.

 

[M14 Shooter]

'Always' being the critical term.

Yes. And one of thse times is when the constitution overrides the majority.
Like when it protects certain rights from abridgement and infringement.
The enshrinement of constitutional rights -- necessarily and intentionally - takes certain policy choices off the table, even of the majority support it.

 

[Moonglow]

How about we get rid of the National Firearms Act?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Please explain then.

The state does not grant your rights - they pre-exist the the constitution and the creation of the state.

Incorrect.

I am absolutely correct.

True but Heller was decided by a single vote.

Irrelevant.

 

[M14 Shooter]

. God didn't give you the right to own an AR-15, government gave you that right, and what government gives today it can take away tomorrow.

The USSC disagrees.
Government does not grant rights.

The first and ninth counts state the intent of the defendants to have been to hinder and prevent the citizens named in the free exercise and enjoyment of their 'lawful right and privilege to peaceably assemble together with each other and with other citizens of the United States for a peaceful and lawful purpose.' The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government. It 'derives its source,' to use the language of Chief Justice Marshall, in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 211, 'from those laws whose authority is acknowledged by civilized man throughout the world.' It is found wherever civilization exists. It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution
...
The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,

UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK ET AL.

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[M14 Shooter]

All rights are 'infringed' in some way or another. None are absolute.

This mean as person can be denied the right to vote based on their race.
This means a person can be denied the right to vote based on their sex..
This means a person can be held as a slave.

 

[2aguy]

I'm impressed. Are you smarter or just better educated than 75% of Americans? Too bad you live in a democracy and may not always get to decide what is allowed and what is not.

Better educated on these issues....you idiot.......

 

[2aguy]

The 2nd is hardly clear, that is why it took 200 years before the SCOTUS decided it was an individual right and didn't apply to a militia. God didn't give you the right to own an AR-15, government gave you that right, and what government gives today it can take away tomorrow. The intransigence of the NRA and gun-nuts (you know who you are) are only making more gun controls more likely. Keep up the good work.


SCOTUS decides constitutionality not you.

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER, 2008

No...you dope....

No one thought to make up the idea that the 2nd Amendment only applied to militia...everyone understood it to mean what it says...the Right of the People shall not be infringed. Then, gun grabbers who want to control the country decided they needed to ban and confiscate guns, but the 2nd Amendment makes it hard to do.....so, in true 1984 fashion, they simply changed the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, and we had to take them to fucking court to stop them...

And the part of Heller you don't want to quote...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
-----
Also from Scalia, something else you don't want to quote......now that there are over 20 million AR-15 rifles in private hands....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

-

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The state does not grant your rights

Actually, they do. Try exercising them without the permission of the state and see where that gets you.

 

[alang1216]

The state does not grant your rights - they pre-exist the the constitution and the creation of the state.

So what was the purpose of the Constitution? Do the English have the right to bear arms? Do Russians have the right of free speech?

 

[alang1216]

No...you dope....

No one thought to make up the idea that the 2nd Amendment only applied to militia...everyone understood it to mean what it says...the Right of the People shall not be infringed. Then, gun grabbers who want to control the country decided they needed to ban and confiscate guns, but the 2nd Amendment makes it hard to do.....so, in true 1984 fashion, they simply changed the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, and we had to take them to fucking court to stop them...

And the part of Heller you don't want to quote...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
-----
Also from Scalia, something else you don't want to quote......now that there are over 20 million AR-15 rifles in private hands....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

-

Four of the nine SCOTUS justices disagreed with the decision.

 

[alang1216]

This mean as person can be denied the right to vote based on their race.

Wrong. This does mean a person can be denied the right to vote based on their prison record.

This means a person can be denied the right to vote based on their sex..

Wrong. This does mean a person can be denied the right to vote based on their age.

This means a person can be held as a slave.

Wrong. This does mean a person can be denied their freedom if they break the law.

 

[alang1216]

The USSC disagrees.
Government does not grant rights.

The first and ninth counts state the intent of the defendants to have been to hinder and prevent the citizens named in the free exercise and enjoyment of their 'lawful right and privilege to peaceably assemble together with each other and with other citizens of the United States for a peaceful and lawful purpose.' The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government. It 'derives its source,' to use the language of Chief Justice Marshall, in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 211, 'from those laws whose authority is acknowledged by civilized man throughout the world.' It is found wherever civilization exists. It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution

So if me and a million of my closest friends want to march in Washington I don't need to get permission?

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,

UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK ET AL.

www.law.cornell.edu

Ironic you quoted this case: United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), was a major decision of the United States Supreme Court[1] ruling that the U.S. Bill of Rights did not limit the power of private actors or state governments despite the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. It reversed the federal criminal convictions for the civil rights violations committed in aid of anti-Reconstruction murders. Decided during the Reconstruction Era, the case represented a major defeat for federal efforts to protect the civil rights of African Americans.

 

[Flash]

I wonder if it's possible to have a real discussion on so called "assault weapons" without it devolving into hysterics. Let's see. I propose that if the Democrats really wanted to ban ARs and AKs they could do it simply by amending the already existing National FireArms Act of 1934. It has already been amended twice so why not just stop with the angry speeches and amend this law to do it? It is clearly related to the new class of weapons so named "assault weapons". I believe the Democrats don't really want to do anything, they get more political mileage out of posturing and speech making on "Gun Control". What say you?

National Firearms Act | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

The NFA was originally enacted in 1934. Similar to the current NFA, the original Act imposed a tax on the making and transfer of firearms defined by the Act, as well as a special (occupational) tax on persons and entities engaged in the business of importing, manufacturing, and dealing in NFA...

www.atf.gov

What do I say, Mike?

I say the NFA is un Constitutional and should be abolished.

Of course that doesn't contribute to the discussion you are trying to get started so I apologize.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

The 2nd is hardly clear, that is why it took 200 years before the SCOTUS decided it was an individual right and didn't apply to a militia. God didn't give you the right to own an AR-15, government gave you that right, and what government gives today it can take away tomorrow. The intransigence of the NRA and gun-nuts (you know who you are) are only making more gun controls more likely. Keep up the good work.


SCOTUS decides constitutionality not you.

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER, 2008

It's very clear "shall not be infringed" and subsequent quotes by the Founding Fathers backs up the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. There are no except for clauses in the 2nd Amendment.

Thankfully I live in an area were Law Enforcement will ignore any unconstitutional bans. So the only way to get those weapons is for Federal officials to kill US citizens exercising a Constitutional right, because that is the only way most are going to give up their firearms.

Personally I think all of you loons calling for bans and confiscations should be the ones to stack up and take them. Man up and stand behind your convictions the same way those who will not give up theirs for your false sense of security.

 

[2aguy]

Four of the nine SCOTUS justices disagreed with the decision.

So....they are the dumb ones.

 

[alang1216]

It's very clear "shall not be infringed" and subsequent quotes by the Founding Fathers backs up the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. There are no except for clauses in the 2nd Amendment.

United States v. Nelsen, 859 F.2d 1318 (1988)​

Oct. 20, 1988 · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · No. 88-5169
We also decline to hold that the Act violates the second amendment. Nelsen claims to find a fundamental right to keep and bear arms in that amendment, but this has not been the law for at least 100 years.

Thankfully I live in an area were Law Enforcement will ignore any unconstitutional bans. So the only way to get those weapons is for Federal officials to kill US citizens exercising a Constitutional right, because that is the only way most are going to give up their firearms.

Must be great to live in an area where everyone is above the law.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

United States v. Nelsen, 859 F.2d 1318 (1988)​

Oct. 20, 1988 · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · No. 88-5169
We also decline to hold that the Act violates the second amendment. Nelsen claims to find a fundamental right to keep and bear arms in that amendment, but this has not been the law for at least 100 years.


Must be great to live in an area where everyone is above the law.

The Constitution which is the ultimate law of the land states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. I do not give a shit what someone else's interpretation is. I'm not giving up my rights as a law abiding citizen.